Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Why don't you go to the HQ of that program and tell the employees yourself you don't think they are essential? The target of your anger (borderline hatred if you ask me) is completely off base. You keep attacking middle class workers (and now they're not "REAL" Americans, give me a break ), using your massive assumptions that half of them sit there and do zero work, and then decide you know everything that's "essential" and what is isn't. If you are so mad about misguided federal spending talk to your CONGRESSMAN and if you hate the agency you linked to so much write to the CONGRESSMEN who voted for the legislation that created it. Don't sit here and act like the regular middle class people who saw a job, applied for it, and for all we know go to work and do their jobs everyday are lazy, greedy, and unessential. That is an ASSUMPTION. Which is what your entire argument is built off of.

If you will allow me, I will make one of my own. Your dislike (again near hatred) of federal workers stems from your political views and that your posts are simply a regurgitation of things you read in right-wing blogs or heard on TV/radio. You don't know many (if any) federal workers and you have no knowledge whatsoever of what 99.999999% of federal workers actually do, but it's assuring and reinforcing to your views to assume the worst about them.

Oh, so now its "hatred".

When you challenge a child the child often says you "hate" them.

A lot of children are spoiled...they just expect everything to be given to them and never expect to hear "no" once in a while.

I guess all of the people who were laid off over the last few years were "hated" by their employers, right?

I don't have enough money to purchase a congressman but, yeah I guess I can send them letters to be put in the circular file, usual.

If I am paying for something because if I don't I go to jail, then excuse me if I care where that money goes. Only an entitled, spoiled government worker would be offended by that. It is not up to me to prove the validity of a bureaucracy; it is up to the bureaucracy to prove the validity of its existence.

So much emotion from people who are scared of a .001% cut in federal workers while real America has to deal with 9.1% unemployment. Again, please show me ANY group of Americans who don't depend on da Gubment pay who support your positions.

If my viewpoints were some fringe, right-wing element then why do SO many people DISAPPROVE of Obama's policies?

Read closer. I said, in order to function normally in society. Most of our landscape is built around the car, forcing people to drive. Very few people could grow enough food for their family and still maintain a full time job / raise a family. To own anything, you pay interest (no matter how large the bank).

Of course someone can go live in the forest as a survivalist. That's not what we're talking about here. And you know what? That person probably wouldn't pay federal taxes with such a low income.

In the end - all of your superficial arguments have been dismantled. You're just regurgitating the same talk radio talking points that sounded so good to you in the echo chamber where everybody thought the same way. Federal jobs and money exist worldwide and across the nation and federal government always expands when the market contracts to try and soften the impact (the states that receive the most federal spending for the least contribution tend to vote conservative while the states that contribute the most but receive the least in return tend to vote liberal, just so you know).

You're using DC more as a bogeyman prop than anything real, I think it's time to accept defeat and move along. Your argument is the equivalent of blaming New York City for the entire banking industry simply because a lot of banks are based there. Such a discussion would really belong in the Politics and Other Controversies forum. I'm surprised Yac has allowed this to go on as long as it has.

Look, if you're scared to have a discussion because you are coming from a position of weakness, fine. If the mod wants to move it or whatever that is the mods right. But since you are trying to shut it down that doesn't suggest that I have "lost" and you have "won" (whatever that means ).

You keep trying to place my position in the "shut down the WHOLE government" camp like I'm some anarchist.

I am only arguing for the same position as 90% of Americans who aren't caught up in the spoiled bubble of the entitled Federal worker, which is:

CUT THE WASTE, FIRE THE BAD EMPLOYEES, KEEP ONLY ESSENTIAL FEDS, GET BACK TO A LIMITED GOVERNMENT LIKE THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED, SHARE SOME SACRIFICE WITH YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS.

Once again, I DARE you to go outside the beltway (or a federal building in any American city) and see if what I wrote above is NOT how a MAJORITY of Americans feel.

I am happy to debate this anywhere anytime. I am not asking the mod to shut it down because I am not scared to debate. Before it is shutdown, however, I would at least like acknowledgment that cutting back on the Federal government would not mortally wound the United States.

CUT THE WASTE, FIRE THE BAD EMPLOYEES, KEEP ONLY ESSENTIAL FEDS, GET BACK TO A LIMITED GOVERNMENT LIKE THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED, SHARE SOME SACRIFICE WITH YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS.

Just curious, what do you think about military spending?

I'm all for limiting the government...but most who talk about limiting the government, usually never question DOD spending of $707 billion a year, homeland security at $47 billion a year, Stealth Bombers that cost $1.5 billion each, etc.

I'm all for cutting out a few secretaries making 80K a year, but looking to cut there is like trying to encourage the soon-to-be-bankrupt guy to cut down on his coffee consumption to save a few dollars, while his purchasing vintage Rolls Royce collection goes along unchecked.

Look, if you're scared to have a discussion because you are coming from a position of weakness, fine. If the mod wants to move it or whatever that is the mods right. But since you are trying to shut it down that doesn't suggest that I have "lost" and you have "won" (whatever that means ).

You keep trying to place my position in the "shut down the WHOLE government" camp like I'm some anarchist.

I am only arguing for the same position as 90% of Americans who aren't caught up in the spoiled bubble of the entitled Federal worker, which is:

CUT THE WASTE, FIRE THE BAD EMPLOYEES, KEEP ONLY ESSENTIAL FEDS, GET BACK TO A LIMITED GOVERNMENT LIKE THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED, SHARE SOME SACRIFICE WITH YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS.

Once again, I DARE you to go outside the beltway (or a federal building in any American city) and see if what I wrote above is NOT how a MAJORITY of Americans feel.

I am happy to debate this anywhere anytime. I am not asking the mod to shut it down because I am not scared to debate. Before it is shutdown, however, I would at least like acknowledgment that cutting back on the Federal government would not mortally wound the United States.

Of all the forums you could be posting in about cutting back federal spending - perhaps lobbying San Diego to downsize its military operations or Iowa to turn down corn and other farm subsidies or any state of your choosing that votes to send represenatives here - you are posting your screeds in the one forum that has no representation in the governing body that oversees the budget. That's why you're wrong.

A vast majority of Americans (74%) agree with the Occupy protesters, so I'm not sure what relevance a popularity contest has with any of this. The system's screwed up and people should hold it accountable. They should just be informed enough to target that anger in the right direction. You have, to say the least, misfired on this one.

Likewise, the banking industry doesn't impact the economy as much outside of Wall Street. It's still not a NYC-specific issue. It's an issue for another forum.

I disagree. Occupy Wall Street is being held in New York, not in Searchlight, NV because they have one local bank that's part of the overall banking system. And major anti-war protests are held in DC because it's the nerve center of American empire.

I'm all for limiting the government...but most who talk about limiting the government, usually never question DOD spending of $707 billion a year, homeland security at $47 billion a year, Stealth Bombers that cost $1.5 billion each, etc.

I'm all for cutting out a few secretaries making 80K a year, but looking to cut there is like trying to encourage the soon-to-be-bankrupt guy to cut down on his coffee consumption to save a few dollars, while his purchasing vintage Rolls Royce collection goes along unchecked.

I agree. Personally I think Homeland Security is bloated and corrupt. Look at how ineffective TSA is.

I'm all for limiting the government...but most who talk about limiting the government, usually never question DOD spending of $707 billion a year, homeland security at $47 billion a year, Stealth Bombers that cost $1.5 billion each, etc.

I'm all for cutting out a few secretaries making 80K a year, but looking to cut there is like trying to encourage the soon-to-be-bankrupt guy to cut down on his coffee consumption to save a few dollars, while his purchasing vintage Rolls Royce collection goes along unchecked.

No, I'm not a "cut the government but expand the war machine" person.

The military could easily be cut to 2% of GDP and that includes all of the off-the-books black ops stuff too.

CUT IT ALL!!!

Believe it or not I am all for a LOGICAL AND LIMITED expansion of the federal government DURING ECONOMIC EXPANSION.

Cut the debt, end deficits, more aid to states, more research and development, more student loans. I have no problem with that when our economy is expanding 8-10% a year. We almost had that in the late 90's.

But now? Concentrate on the debt and deficits and take a pair of scissors to other parts of the budget we can't afford.

That is reasonable and logical. Digging your way out of debt by piling on more debt is idiotic and asinine.

Of all the forums you could be posting in about cutting back federal spending - perhaps lobbying San Diego to downsize its military operations or Iowa to turn down corn and other farm subsidies or any state of your choosing that votes to send represenatives here - you are posting your screeds in the one forum that has no representation in the governing body that oversees the budget. That's why you're wrong.

A vast majority of Americans (74%) agree with the Occupy protesters, so I'm not sure what relevance a popularity contest has with any of this. The system's screwed up and people should hold it accountable. They should just be informed enough to target that anger in the right direction. You have, to say the least, misfired on this one.

You don't think the auto industry is discussed on the Detroit forum or the gambling industry on the Las Vegas forum or Cuban affairs on the Miami forum?

Is the only point of this forum, "Hey, where can I find a cheap pho place near Columbia Heights"?

Second, Yes...most Americans want corporate CEO's to be held accountable for the TARP money we all gave them. But that doesn't mean that most Americans support a bunch of drum circle dancing, pot smoking, public park destroying misfits who have little understanding of the corporate world beyond "PUT ALL THE BILLIONAIRES IN JAIL!!"

And third, I am still waiting for somebody to explain why every Federal position in D.C. or anywhere else is essential since they are being paid for by struggling Americans who are trying to squeeze every penny during a harsh recession.

You know thats great, everyone has an intense job. I can use that explanation to rationalize anything, still doesnt justify it.

You can let the CEOs secretary own 50% of the company for all I care, if its tax dollars, and out of line with corporate/local pay then its wrong. Cut it or shut it down.

The market justifies the salaries, and federal employees salaries are 1) linked to the market rate for comparable non-federal jobs in their location 2)average 22% less than their private sector counterparts in an honest statistical comparisson.

If you're seeing an article claiming that the feds are paying secretaries 80k, then they are including the value of their benefits as well, and it's only the secretary who has completely capped out their payscale after a long career with the highest locality adjustment (DC).

Looking at the things that actually baloon the federal budget, anyone who thinks that 80k secretaries are a significant contribution are an embarassment. It's just misplaced spite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicnice

Sweet, now can I get them for all US states and territories?

Sure, just amend the constitution so we don't have a seat of government. It makes no sense and over 85% of the federal workforce is outside of the DC region already, but might as well do it to satisfy a frustrated and uninformed public.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.